Altruism is defined by Merriam-Webster as the following: the principal or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others.
Rand's philosophy rejects altruism as moral behavior and she also feels it is at the heart of today's moral code and she regards it as evil. To put it another way, we are not our brothers' keeper (sounds a little less harsh than "evil", eh?).
Below is an interview with Rand by Mike Wallace in which she articulates fairly clearly her morality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viGkAZR-x8s&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL4DB1244D417EADC2
There is certainly much to respond to in this interview. But again, I'm going to focus on her issue with altruism.
In reading arguments for and against objectivism, I think many misinterpret what Rand is taking to task. She is specifically challenging a person's or a society's decision to sacrifice their own happiness for another. Certainly, one's definition of happiness is unique and there is not a one-size-fits all version. If it makes an individual happy to give/sacrifice their time, their property, etc. to make another happy, namely their child, friend, etc., this type of behavior is not what she challenges.She is not even challenging the idea of charity given voluntarily, as many have interpreted. Instead, she is challenging the notion that an individual works, earns a wage, or generally lives for the happiness of others. Specifically, her morality challenges government sponsored welfare (corporate and personal) or redistribution of wealth.
To understand the issue with government redistributing wealth, one has to understand a key point: government does not have wealth, namely money, of its own to redistribute. In order to do so, government must take money from others (by force) and give to those it deems in need of other peoples' money. It is also important to recognize taxation as a form of force. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that since the first step in collecting taxes does not include officials showing up at your door with guns, taxation is not force. Stop voluntarily paying your taxes, and rest assured, your money and property will be taken from you.
What does this have to do with altruism? My interpretation is government's redistribution of wealth is an example of many people being forced to sacrifice their property, a key asset in their pursuit of their own happiness, for the happiness of others. Even though many of the people and some businesses receiving the money may have been truly in need, the unfortunate fact remains many of the people who's money was taken did not have a choice. Even more unfortunate, in most cases, the fact the recipient may have used the money for rational purposes has little to no bearing on the happiness of the original owner. In fact, I believe it to be fair to suggest the transaction limited the original owners' ability to pursue their own happiness.
The challenge is there are people truly in need. Ideally, those people in need of assistance will be helped voluntarily, instead of being forced to do so. For the question of whether or not altruism is evil or immoral...I have to say no. I do not hold altruism in itself to be immoral or evil. It is the the forced redistribution of wealth in the name of altruism I reject.
Below is an interview with Rand by Mike Wallace in which she articulates fairly clearly her morality:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viGkAZR-x8s&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL4DB1244D417EADC2
There is certainly much to respond to in this interview. But again, I'm going to focus on her issue with altruism.
In reading arguments for and against objectivism, I think many misinterpret what Rand is taking to task. She is specifically challenging a person's or a society's decision to sacrifice their own happiness for another. Certainly, one's definition of happiness is unique and there is not a one-size-fits all version. If it makes an individual happy to give/sacrifice their time, their property, etc. to make another happy, namely their child, friend, etc., this type of behavior is not what she challenges.She is not even challenging the idea of charity given voluntarily, as many have interpreted. Instead, she is challenging the notion that an individual works, earns a wage, or generally lives for the happiness of others. Specifically, her morality challenges government sponsored welfare (corporate and personal) or redistribution of wealth.
To understand the issue with government redistributing wealth, one has to understand a key point: government does not have wealth, namely money, of its own to redistribute. In order to do so, government must take money from others (by force) and give to those it deems in need of other peoples' money. It is also important to recognize taxation as a form of force. Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that since the first step in collecting taxes does not include officials showing up at your door with guns, taxation is not force. Stop voluntarily paying your taxes, and rest assured, your money and property will be taken from you.
What does this have to do with altruism? My interpretation is government's redistribution of wealth is an example of many people being forced to sacrifice their property, a key asset in their pursuit of their own happiness, for the happiness of others. Even though many of the people and some businesses receiving the money may have been truly in need, the unfortunate fact remains many of the people who's money was taken did not have a choice. Even more unfortunate, in most cases, the fact the recipient may have used the money for rational purposes has little to no bearing on the happiness of the original owner. In fact, I believe it to be fair to suggest the transaction limited the original owners' ability to pursue their own happiness.
The challenge is there are people truly in need. Ideally, those people in need of assistance will be helped voluntarily, instead of being forced to do so. For the question of whether or not altruism is evil or immoral...I have to say no. I do not hold altruism in itself to be immoral or evil. It is the the forced redistribution of wealth in the name of altruism I reject.
No comments:
Post a Comment